THIRD ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01073
INDEX CODE: 100.03
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
A new Board consider this evidence and promote him to brigadier general
(BG) with a date of rank of 30 March 2001.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On 5 November 2003, the applicant's request to have an erroneous Air Force
Inspector General (AF/IG) Report of Investigation (ROI), S55942B, removed
from his record was considered and denied by the Board. For an accounting
of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s request, and,
the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of
Proceedings at Exhibit I.
On 3 February 2004, the Board reconsidered and denied an amended request
that he be promoted to the grade of BG with a date of rank of 30 March
2001. The Record of Proceedings, with attachments, is at Exhibit J.
On 15 June 2004, the applicant submitted an additional amended request
asking that a new Board be presented evidence that he has been unjustly
targeted by Mr. A. and that he has been denied due process in that the
Board interviewed the original Investigating Officer (IO) from the Air
Force IG, and his right to respond to the interview was not honored. To
support his request, he has included a personal statement and copy of a
Washington Post newspaper article regarding a Government Accounting Office
(GAO) investigation into diploma mills and senior federal government
employees. His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit K.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
After again reviewing this application and the evidence provided, we remain
unpersuaded that the application warrants relief. We carefully considered
the statements provided by the applicant, in particular his contention that
Mr. A. is the person he believes is responsible for keeping him from
receiving the promotion to BG, and the statement from the TAG-SC
supportings his allegations. Other than conjecture and speculation on the
part of the applicant and the TAG-SC, the Board is of the opinion no
evidence has been presented that would lead us to believe there was any
material wrongdoing by any individuals who may or may not have had an
interest in denying the applicant’s promotion to brigadier general.
Therefore, absent any credible evidence to the contrary, we can find no
reason with which to grant the relief sought in this case.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate
the existence of probable material error or injustice; and that the
application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly
discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive
Session on 14 September 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Panel Chair
Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member
Ms. Leslie E. Abbott, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit K. Applicant’s Submission, dated 15 Jun 04, w/atchs.
Exhibit L. 2nd Addendum to Record of Proceedings, dated
14 Sep 04, w/Exhibits.
BRENDA L. ROMINE
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01073
Applicant states, in part, that he advised the South Carolina Adjutant General (SC AG) of an attempt by another officer in the SC ANG to subvert the AG’s express wishes by having himself (the other officer) assigned to the COS position in the SC ANG; he was asked by the AG to document, by memorandum, the conversation between the two, which he did; the memorandum “found its way to others” and he subsequently became the focus of an AF/IG investigation that eventually found that he had...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01871
Two of the members of a three-person ethics panel appointed to conduct an ethics review on him had already prejudged the case and/or had an obvious interest in supporting the IG’s conclusions. They also provide responses to each of the allegations made by the applicant. Again, other than his assertion, the applicant has not provided evidence to support this allegation.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2002-03823A
ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-03823 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: In the applicant’s request for reconsideration, she requests that her Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) be amended to reflect a Professional Military Education (PME) recommendation for Intermediate Service School (ISS) and...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-1983-01854A
Exhibit F. Letter, AFMPC/DPMARS2, dated 0 May 86. Exhibit J. Exhibit O.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03587
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 03-03587 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 26 October 1982, the discharge authority directed that the applicant be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Section A,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070008429C071029
On page 1 of the 78-page typewritten report of this interview, LTC T___ informed the applicant: “You’re advised that you are suspected of the following allegations which we want to question you about: That you improperly relieved an Officer; that you improperly processed Officer Evaluation Reports; and that you reprised against an Officer for making a protected communication.” (page 9) Q. “If the 15-6 or any other issue was used as the basis for the relief action, we see no evidence that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090017281
The applicant states, in a 29-page brief, that: a. He was a senior officer in the NYARNG as the Commander, 10th Brigade, from May 1993 to October 1996. Furthermore, although the CI determined that this OER contained administrative and substantive errors and recommended its removal from his records, and although it is noted that the rating officials did not complete the contested OER in a timely manner, that an OER support form was submitted with this report, and that the applicant was...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00315
He completed a total of 3 years, 9 months, and 3 days of active service and was serving in the grade of airman (E-2) at the time of discharge. The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He was doing well in the Air Force until he came home and found his wife in bed with another airman, whom she eventually married. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and noting the...
After thoroughly reviewing the documentation submitted with this appeal, we are not persuaded that the contested report is an inaccurate assessment of the applicant's performance during the contested time period. The applicant asserts that there was insufficient supervision under the rater and additional rater for an Evaluation Performance Report (EPR) to be rendered; however, the Board finds insufficient documentation to support this contention. Exhibit F. Letter, Addendum to Report of...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04795
Her record be corrected to reflect that she was selected for the position of Director, Reserve Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) Management Office (REAMO) effective Jan 09. As to a violation of Title 10 USC 1034b, the applicant appears to have the opinion that she was the only qualified applicant and would have been selected but for reprisal by the Deputy AF/RE substantiated in the SAF/IGS ROI. AF/JAA states that the applicant was not the only AGR who was the top candidate for the Director, REAMO...